4.  The applicant is a company based in Šabac.
5.  On 15 June 2000 the Municipal Court (“Opštinski sud”) in Bačka Palanka formally confirmed an agreement reached between the applicant and one of its business partners, an agricultural cooperative called “Zadrugar” (hereinafter “the debtor”), whereby the latter agreed to pay the former a total of 3,248,567 Yugoslav Dinars by 31 July 2000. In addition and as security for this undertaking, a mortgage in favour of the applicant was established concerning a particular plot of land, at that time listed in the land register as being under the debtor's ownership.
6.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant filed an enforcement request with the same Municipal Court, claiming that the debtor had failed to comply with the above agreement.
7.  On 28 March 2002 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant's request. It ordered the valuation and sale of the land in question, as well as the payment of interest on the applicant's claim.
8.  On 6 June 2003 the municipal authorities in Bačka Palanka reviewed the property status of the real estate in question.
9.  On 28 August 2003, having apparently noted that this land was perhaps not owned by the debtor, the Municipal Court issued an amended enforcement order, stating, inter alia, that the applicant's claim should be settled through the process of evaluation and auctioning of a number of other plots at that time listed in the land register as being owned by the debtor.
10.  On 22 September 2003 the Municipal Court stayed these proceedings until the debtor's ownership of this property had been formally established by the Land Registry (Republicki geodetski zavod).
11.  On 20 February 2004 the Bačka Palanka Division of the Land Registry (Služba za katastar nepokretnosti) decided to suspend the proceedings concerning the debtor's title until the resolution of a separate, already pending, civil case concerning the same property.
12.  It would appear that this civil case, brought by the State, was resolved by 29 September 2004 and that the applicant's co-ownership of the land in question was recognised.
13.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings, stayed by the Municipal Court, be continued.
14.  On 9 December 2003 the Commercial Court (“Trgovinski sud”) in Novi Sad ruled in favour of the applicant in another case, ordering the same debtor to pay a total of 2,336,720.80 Serbian Dinars (“CSD”), with interest, plus costs. By 9 January 2004 this judgment became both final and enforceable.
15.  Based on the above judgment and in response to the applicant's request of 26 February 2004, on 28 October 2004 the Municipal Court in Bačka Palanka issued an enforcement order against the debtor for the above payment, plus interest as of 18 July 2003, as well as another CSD 172,234.40 for costs together with interest as of 9 January 2004. For this purpose a number of plots deemed to be owned by the debtor were to be evaluated and auctioned, with the applicant's claim being met from the proceeds.
16.  On 12 November 2004 the Municipal Court in Bačka Palanka decided to join the two sets of enforcement proceedings.
17.  On 1 December 2004 it formally accepted the expert's opinion and valued the land in question.
18.  On 13 December 2004 the Municipal Court scheduled a public auction for 2 February 2005.
19.  On 27 December 2004 the Attorney General (Republički javni pravobranilac) requested, inter alia, that the State itself be allowed to take part in the proceedings, and noted that the auction should only be carried out in respect of the plots which were undisputedly owned by the debtor.
20.  On 2 February 2005 the auction was postponed by the Municipal Court. It was re-scheduled for 16 February 2005.
21.  On 16 February 2005 the Attorney General repeated the request of 27 December 2004.
22.  On 16 February 2005 the auction was postponed and re-scheduled for 23 March 2005.
23.  On 16 March 2005 the Municipal Court informed the parties that the auction was again postponed for 30 days because the Municipal Public Prosecutor had urged the Chief Public Prosecutor “to file a Request for the Protection of Legality” (zahtev za zaštitu zakonitosti).
24.  On 19 August 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the debtor's motion that the value of the land at issue needed to be re-assessed.
25.  On 17 March 2006 the Municipal Court held a public auction and recognised the applicant as the new co-owner of a number of plots formerly co-owned by the debtor.
26.  Several days later, the applicant's representatives saw these plots and concluded that they were still being used by the debtor.
27.  On 4 April 2006 the Municipal Court ordered that the land be handed over to the applicant and, further, that the applicant's newly acquired ownership be entered in the land register.
28.  On 7 April 2006 the Municipal Court rectified a minor textual error in its decision of 4 April 2006.
29.  In a separate decision issued on 7 April 2006, the Municipal Court ordered the transfer to the applicant's bank account of the remaining proceeds from its pecuniary claim, and the applicant waived its right to file an appeal against that decision.
30.  Notwithstanding the Municipal Court's decision of 4 April 2006 the debtor refused to provide the applicant with access to and use of the plots of land in question.
31.  On 8 May 2006 the applicant filed a civil trespass claim, seeking possession of this land.
32.  On 15 September 2006 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant, stating that it had no possession to begin with, which is why none could be restored.